Writ jurisdiction in lieu of a statutory appeal inadmissible where the statutory remedy was not availed and delay is unexplained.

Writ challenge to an order under the GST statute was analysed against the availability of a statutory appeal which prescribes a 90 day filing period; the principle that a writ in lieu of an alternative statutory remedy is permissible only if filed within a reasonable time was applied, and unexplained delay or self inflicted failure to pursue the appellate route justified refusal of writ relief. The petitioner's delay after receipt of the order and failure to explain non availment of the prescribed appeal led to exercise of discretion against granting relief, resulting in dismissal in favour of the revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, filed after substantial delay and without availing the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Act, is maintainable before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provides an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which prescribes a 90-day period for filing an appeal; invocation of writ jurisdiction in lieu of the statutory remedy is permissible only if the writ is filed within a reasonable period. Delay in approaching the High Court, unexplained or attributable to the petitioner's own inaction, and failure to demonstrate when the petitioner became aware of the impugned order are relevant factors. Where a petitioner by his own fault disables himself from availing the prescribed statutory remedy, the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 may not be exercised. The facts show the petitioner waited after receipt of the order and did not pursue the statutory appellate remedy within the prescribed time; no satisfactory explanation for the delay or for not monitoring communication of the order has been furnished.

Conclusion: The petition is dismissed; the outcome is in favour of the revenue.

---